|Mark Elliot Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook.|
Image credit: TIME
What's the point of asking people to vote, when you don't take heed to their choice and dictate your own decision?
As you already know, TIME magazine chose Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg as the Person of the Year 2010. I have doubts about it. What did Zuckerberg do in 2010 to become the Person of the Year? Became the youngest billionaire? Think about it. If they have chosen him in 2005, 2006 or 2007 I would understand. Even the Person of the Decade? Maybe. But not for the year 2010.
Nobody can deny he made a great impact on our daily lives with Facebook & he's a brillant mind. I read the citation on TIME web site, explaining why did they choose Zuckerberg as the Person of the Year. Frankly, I'm not satisfied with their arguments. After all he was on 10th position in the poll results. I don't know what the TIME's editors were thinking... (Amazon and PayPal perhaps?)
On the other hand WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was my favourite nominee. Eventually, he took majority of the votes on the TIME poll (click here for the results). I hate to agree with majority most of the time, but this is an exception. No need to explain why he deserved to be the Person of the Year 2010.
|Julian Paul Assange, founder of WikiLeaks. |
Image credit: Stuff.co.nz
On TIME's web site a statement caught my attention. It read,
"Take a look at this year's candidates and, now that voting has closed, view the final ratings — though TIME's editors who choose the actual (?) Person of the Year reserve the right to disagree."If I understand correctly from that statement there are two Person's of the Year; one who won majority of the people's votes on the poll and the other who is chosen by the TIME's editors delibaretly. So you make a short list, invite people to vote, then you say "Sorry, you all are wrong. We already picked X as the Person of the Year. That's all folks! See you next year..." No, I don't think so...
Am I wrong?